She has no obligation to comment on an event that has far-reaching implications with regards to the foreign policy she'll preside over if her campaign for the presidency is successful?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US Department of Defense confirms it targeted/killed Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran's Quds Force, outside Baghdad Airport
- Thread starter poklane
- Start date
- Status
She has no obligation to comment on an event that has far-reaching implications with regards to the foreign policy she'll preside over if her campaign for the presidency is successful?
Read my posts and grasp that you are being naive.
How old are you?
Yes yes, he was a terrorist and supported terrorism. It's very good that the bad man is dead. It's great. I'm glad justice was served. I hope justice will be served for all the people that will be killed as a result, and I hope justice will be served to their killers, and I hope justice will be served to their killers, and I hope justice will be served to their killers, and I hope...
We just openly admitted to committing a war crime. Shouting that this person was bad after the fact just makes you look foolish and that youre downplaying the severity of that act. It plays into the hands of the American war machine and after the last 20 years I would have thought we would be smart enough to say enough is enough.
You do not keep the US out of war by just parroting Fox News talking points. That's madness.
The idea that we don't need to think about the repercussions of our actions just because someone is evil...is insane.
Americans are going to die because of what happened today. And I am betting more than would have if he had lived.
Americans are going to die because of what happened today. And I am betting more than would have if he had lived.
Fridays sermon should be interesting today in Iraq and Iran.
Seems like the Iraq Gvt didn't know about this strike from listening to Al-Jazeera
Seems like the Iraq Gvt didn't know about this strike from listening to Al-Jazeera
Ok, killing another armed combatent in a war zone is not in fact a war crime.
She had no obligation to call him an evil man who deserved to get got. She could AND SHOULD have done exactly what Sanders did.
An actually good take, instead of the posters outright mourning his death. He was Iran's chief terrorist handler and should not be missed.
The problem is that there's no fucking way that this administration can prevent this from turning into an utter shitshow.
We are not at war with Iran, what are you talking about? We attacked a fucking airport.
Iran OR Iraq. Or do we get to just kill anyone in Iraq anytime we want for the rest of time?
Biden was on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations during the Iraq War, so no hes heard of Soleimani, and has been given classified briefings and dossiers on Iran's affairs in the Middle East. As VP during Obama, during the Syrian Civil War, he would have heard the same as Soleimani was the highest ranking and involved Iranian ground officer in Syria.
Warren was a Senator with Committee assignments relating to military affairs, not unlikely she encountered his name.
Again, the Republicans and the military will be loudly proclaiming the death of Soleimani, he ran Iran's anti-U.S operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, asking the Democrats to not treat him as a criminal is walking into a clear trap.
Educating is a piss poor choice of words. Propagandizing is more like it.
But the point that should be made is that prefacing all of your actions by capitulating to the Republican justifications simply strengthens their argument while leaving whatever you say in contention.
This is the same rhetorical trap Democrats let themselves get in time and time again, then spend years crawling out of, but on matters like this the stakes couldn't be higher.
You don't need to talk about how bad he is, about why his death is good. Which is directly undercutting your own argument that assassinating a foreign head of state against international law is not acceptable and is dangerously escalatory and decreases American safety and security at home and abroad. It simply traps in the box of either being labeled too weak to do what you think was a positive development given your capitulation rhetoric, or that your opposition is the result of political pettiness.
You don't seem to have enough of a grasp on the situation at hand. That's simply not what happened at all.
We're not at war with Iran. You wouldn't make this statement if the roles were reversed and an American General got bombed in the Middle East.
Restrictions on military action against iran was at the very top of the list of things anti-war groups were disappointed in giving up in the NDAA which gave Trump a military blank check three weeks ago. Maybe if we had a real fight at that point this could have been stopped, or at least we'd have known Trump's intentions better beforehand.
It's frustrating. You can't just enable Trump to do whatever he wants and then pretend nothing could have been done when he shows he really is the monster they say he is. It reminds me so much of 2003, where there's just bill after bill enabling Bush to do whatever he wants, and then claim absolutely no fault because maybe someone other than Bush would have used that power better. This is reality, not hypothetical. The person you enable with these bills is Trump, no one else.
From what I've read he's a commander for the Iranian forces in Iraq.
only if you think assassinating high ranking members of a government is bad i guess
I mean...if America was fucking around in that country but not "at war" I wouldn't.
You guys do realize Iran is fucking around in Iraq and Syria right?
I wish people would stop using the "but we haven't declared war on x country" line. Firstly, it implies that a formal declaration of war is sufficient to establishing moral and legal legitimacy to be carrying out these attacks. Secondly, it's a meaningless distinction nowadays. For the past 30-something years, no two countries that have been in a de-facto war with each other bothered to go through the formality of declaring war on one another.
I'm not overly concerned for Soleimani's life, but I am supremely concerned that we are in no way, shape, or form prepared for the consequences of this action on multiple fronts.
We killed military leadership of a nation we are not at war with, in a civilian zone, seemingly without any congressional approval or advisement.
If anything, this is BY FAR the largest breech of protocol exhibited by this administration.
This cowboy bullshit will get us in trouble.
We killed military leadership of a nation we are not at war with, in a civilian zone, seemingly without any congressional approval or advisement.
If anything, this is BY FAR the largest breech of protocol exhibited by this administration.
This cowboy bullshit will get us in trouble.
I remember the daily Two Minutes of Hate Americans were expected to perform against Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the Iraq War and Im 100% confident that ritualized hatred of the enemy led to popular acceptance of the war and to hundreds of thousands of deaths. So fucking excuse me if I'm not happy about the same old tactic being deployed again, automatically, without thought, by most of the political establishment just as actual war with Iran becomes into the American consciousness.
I'm gonna be honest, I think I may have skimmed that New Yorker article about him but that's about it, I didn't even remember his name.
I think what the US did is an act of war against Iran, and it dramatically increase the chance of the US getting into a hot conflict with it. And as someone who is against a war with Iran I am gonna be against that.
I don't think I must be forced to recite the things that the US government had to say about the guy in order to say that.
is fucking around in Iraq better or worse than a high profile assassination in Iraq
You need to back out of this thread and come back when you know what constitutes a war crime. Someone being a bad guy in the eyes of the US is not permission to violate international law.
Yeah, we've got a high chance of Trump re-election. Lid is off and he's now emboldened. Enough war and the American public will fall in line to vote him back in.
I mean look at this thread, a non-negligible percentage of ostensibly progressive posters already apologising for the assassination.
I mean look at this thread, a non-negligible percentage of ostensibly progressive posters already apologising for the assassination.
That's why it's bad.
Since you know they're not at war with Russia officially.
I guess Ukraine is commiting war crimes defending themselves from the "not Russians".
Since you know they're not at war with Russia officially.
Man, what point are you even trying to argue anymore? Are you implying he deserved to be assassinated?
I like how we took me saying this isn't a war crime to mean I support what we did.
I said it's bad and we shouldn't have done it.
To protect our ants from being attacked by enemy ants, we just killed their queen.
As the head of Quds Force, he led Iranian and Iranian proxy forces against the U.S in Iraq and Afghanistan (and other countries), and as you know, Iran was not at war with the U.S, but it didn't stop them from funding, arming, and likely partaking in direct action against Coalition forces in those two countries. Saying that the U.S didn't have some moral argument to killing him is not going to go well in light of the fact he directed Iranian forces against us.
I'm not saying we were right to kill him, but these are the arguments your going to hear in response. Tbf, we attacked his convoy as it left the airport. The convoy also had the leaders of the PMU, a paramilitary group that led the embassy protests and "attack". As head of Quds Force, he likely green-lit (or at least supplied and armed) the rocket attacks on U.S forces reported up to now, and which killed a American or more.
This is spot-on.
The idea of not sugarcoating America's imperialism is simply inconceivable for them. Utterly grotesque.
Nothing Fox News or the right wing do is ever correctly described as "educating the American people."
I don't think admitting that this guy has killed thousands is going to detract away from the message that this was an extremely bad idea.
What a war crime is.
I said this is bad. He's the number two for Iran. It's outright declaration of war.
Youre right anyone should just be able to bomb anyone they see fit whenever they decide theyre at war.
But you also then made a lot of posts about how it's not actually that bad, and arguably good. We can see those posts too, you know.
Old enough to have experienced two Middle East wars as an adult and have friends be permanently injured, mentally and physically, and died in them. To experience first hand the sort of casual justifications people used to give cover to ever increasing escalatory actions.
To have been intimately familiar through undergrad work that included the study of the political rhetoric in post WWI Europe and modern America for which war mobilization is achieved rhetorically and politically, including the sort of traps opposition parties fall into that you are simply hand waving away as Democrats do so today.
now, how old are you?
Thank you. This fucking drive to appear reasonable and non-partisan is doing nothing but help Trump get his war. I'm sick of it.
Yeah, cause that will surely gin up support among those who believe in a strong military. She was playing the game, just as one should when running to command the strongest military in the world. She never once even intimated support for this killing. Sanders' response was boilerplate pandering that plays well with a minority of Americans.
- Status